Re: more detailed description of tup_returned and tup_fetched - Mailing list pgsql-docs
From | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Subject | Re: more detailed description of tup_returned and tup_fetched |
Date | |
Msg-id | dc21f9fd-52de-ba5d-24c2-c87069986f6f@oss.nttdata.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: more detailed description of tup_returned and tup_fetched (Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Responses |
Re: more detailed description of tup_returned and tup_fetched
|
List | pgsql-docs |
On 2021/05/18 18:23, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > > > On 2021/05/18 16:01, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2021/05/18 13:20, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> Tid Range Scan increments the tup_returned, and >>> pg_stat_all_tables.seq_tup_read is also incremented. I thought it's ok because >>> Tid Range Scan is like sequential scan. >> >> Yes, you're right. One interesting thing I found is; >> when Tid Range Scan happens, seq_tup_read is incremented >> but seq_scan is not. I'm not sure if this is expected behavior or not. > > The following comment says that this behavior is expected. But, I agree it's > odd and it's natural both seq_tup_read and seq_scan are incremented at the > same time or not... > > /* > * Currently, we only have a stats counter for sequential heap scans (but > * e.g for bitmap scans the underlying bitmap index scans will be counted, > * and for sample scans we update stats for tuple fetches). > */ > if (scan->rs_base.rs_flags & SO_TYPE_SEQSCAN) > pgstat_count_heap_scan(scan->rs_base.rs_rd); > > >>> That's the reason why the document of >>> pg_stat_all_tables.seq_tup_read says "Number of live rows fetched by >>> sequential scans" >> >> Regarding the original issue, as far as I understand correctly, >> >> * pg_stat_database.tup_returned = sum(pg_stat_all_tables.seq_tup_read) + >> sum(pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read) >> * pg_stat_database.tup_fetched = sum(pg_stat_all_tables.idx_tup_fetch) >> >> But the counters for some system catalogs like pg_database shared >> across all databases of a cluster are excluded from that calculation. >> Is this my understanding right? If right, probably we can reuse >> the existing descriptions for those counters to document >> pg_stat_database counters. For example, > > Yes, my understanding is same now. > > >> pg_stat_database.tup_returned:> Number of live rows fetched by sequential and index scans in this database > > I wonder "live rows fetched by index scans" may mislead. I think "live" means > it's not dead tuple and "rows" mean the tuple user want to get. > > But, pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read says that "index entires returned by > scans on this index". There is no meaning of "live" and "rows", so I thought > it's better to distinguish them. > > So, why don't you change to "Number of live rows fetched by sequential scans > and index entries returned by index scans in this database"? Yes, LGTM. >> pg_stat_database.tup_fetched: >> Number of index entries returned by scans on indexes in this database > Is this the sum of pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read? This is accounted to > pg_stat_database.tup_returned. I was thinking that pg_stat_database.tup_fetched is the same as the sum of pg_stat_all_tables.idx_tup_fetch. Because they both are incremented by bitmap index scans, but pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_tup_read is not. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
pgsql-docs by date: